View full sizeScott Learn, The OregonianA coal train moving through Wyoming's section of the Powder River Basin.

Coal trains destined for planned terminals in Oregon
and Washington could gum up already congested lines, increase rail rates for
other freight and increase taxpayers' costs to fix rail problems, a report
released today by the Western Organization of Resource Councils predicts.

Six Northwest export terminals are on the drawing
boards, with plans to ship some 150 million tons of coal a year to fast-growing
Asia, up from about 5 million tons annually now through three British Columbia
ports. For context: In 2010, trains unloaded about
80 million tons of freight in Oregon and Washington.

"This,
make no mistake about it, is a huge, huge increase in volume, like we've never
seen before in this part of the world," said Terry Whiteside, a rail consultant
based in Montana and one of the report's authors.

There are no Northwest coal export facilities now.
But if all six go forward and reach full capacity by 2022 they'd generate up to
60 additional 1¼-mile-long coal trains a day, arriving full and returning
empty, the report estimates. That figure also includes expanded export from the
British Columbia terminals.

* Existing rail traffic, including
export grain traffic and import and export container traffic, will likely
experience a deterioration of rail service and higher freight rates and
equipment costs, with railroads likely favoring the more profitable coal
business. Increased delays could bump import-export container traffic away from
Northwest ports to California and Canada.

* Total required rail improvements in
Washington, Oregon, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho could exceed $5 billion. The
railroads, principally BNSF Railway, which has the shortest routes, would pick
up costs for many line upgrades. But state and local governments "would likely
bear the brunt" of local improvements to compensate for train traffic, spending
"hundreds of millions" on projects such as rail bypasses and adding overpasses
to separate trains from roads.

* The rail traffic would hit existing
chokepoints. All trains would move through Billings and "the funnel" from
Sandpoint, Idaho, to Spokane. The Columbia River Gorge and the Interstate 5
corridor from Portland to Seattle would also face crowding challenges, though
BNSF has two other east-west lines in Washington that it could use to lessen
the impact.

* States and communities have little
leverage on federally regulated railroads. But agricultural shippers, states
and others with concerns should lobby Congress to require thorough review of
potential rail impacts by the federal Surface Transportation Board. That review
could include requiring railroads to spend money on improvements.

Railroad officials say concerns about
coal train traffic are overblown. New terminals would come on line slowly, they
say, and the railroads would use prospects of revenue from increased traffic to
make needed improvements.

BNSF spokeswoman Suann Lundsberg said the company was not asked to participate in the study, called it speculative and faulted the researchers for assuming that Union Pacific wouldn't carry any coal traffic.

Some export coal would likely come from Utah and Colorado mines, where UP has the edge. Both rail lines serves Longview, Wash., she noted, home to one of the largest proposed export terminals.

It's also uncertain if Asian exports
will materialize as expected – ambitious coal export plans have fallen flat
before -- or that all the terminals will be built.